guildwarsfandomcom-20200222-history
User talk:MRA
Guild Wars World Championship 2006 Excellent work. Thank you very much. --Karlos 05:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC) : You're welcome. (Such things happen when there is nothing interesting on tv ;) --MRA 06:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC) Re: Deletes Just so you know, I'm 99% sure that only admins can delete pages. You can move them (and I wonder why the typo'd page wasn't moved to the non-typo'd page earlier) and tag pages for deletion, which you did. Thanks for that, by the way. 69.124.143.230 05:41, 8 March 2006 (CST) :Odd, didn't notice your move in the Move log. I thought the old page would be deleted, silly me. 69.124.143.230 05:46, 8 March 2006 (CST) User page layout "shamelessly stolen" :D It is nice that some people in the wiki add a note of copying on their user pages. There is only one thing which bothers me in this one. It mentions Phoenix as the source, but his user page is almost an exact a duplicate of mine (before I made some edits to mine), including texts which surely aren't telling the truth about his characters. Therefor I would appreciate it if you changed the note to include my user page instead, although I understand if you don't. --[[User:Gem|'Gem']] 14:27, 2 May 2006 (CDT) :Sorry, I haven't been aware of that. But I also have no problem in adding you to the list of credits. (After all, source references are transitive by definition ... ;)) --MRA 14:41, 2 May 2006 (CDT) ::Thank you, I feel better now. :) The only one who really irritated me was Phoenix himself, who had directly copied my whole page without making any significant edits to it. Why do I bother with a nice user page if in a few weeks everyone has the exact duplicate? --[[User:Gem|'Gem']] 14:47, 2 May 2006 (CDT) :::Why do you bother with a nice user page if in a few weeks everyone has the exact duplicate? — Stabber ✍ 14:49, 2 May 2006 (CDT) ::::Exactly my thoughts. I'll go into a simplified layout immediately. --[[User:Gem|'Gem']] 15:07, 2 May 2006 (CDT) :Phoenix has my old earth build on his page :p Skuld 14:52, 2 May 2006 (CDT) ::Have you seen anything original on his page? (Ok, the content of the Phoenix and Angel boxes maby) --[[User:Gem|'Gem']] 15:07, 2 May 2006 (CDT) Awww, you are all too nice to me. (or its a big joke conspiracy, I don't mind :) ) Your version of the Nogem template is übercool! -- 13:19, 11 May 2006 (CDT) Tip You should use the 'Show Preview' button before saving. :) --[[User:Gem|'Gem']] 06:57, 6 May 2006 (CDT) :It's not nice to wade through that much HTML Skuld 07:14, 6 May 2006 (CDT) Discontinued premade builds Ahoy. You are the sole contributor on a number of articles like W/R Wolf Child. Based on your descriptions (and the fact that I haven't seen them in the year I've played), these seem to have been beta builds. If that is the case, could you come up with a clearer way to say that (like "The Foo Bar Quxer was a premade build available during the Guild Wars beta test" or something) and flag the pages appropriately? I don't really know anything about the builds, so I don't want to just guess and try to do it myself. If you have an approximate timeframe (were these all around right before release or during the earlier stages of the game?), that might be nice to put in, too. Cheers! — 130.58 (talk) (19:29, 16 June 2006 (CDT)) :Although I would also like to have more data on the discontinued builds I fear I don't have this data in need. I do play from day one, but I havn't been in beta. I just remembered that I had heard about a premade build called R/E Shock Sniper but were not able to find info about this (and similar, "historical" builds) in GuildWiki, so I tried to fill in the gap. :The data I submitted was researched from the internet (praise google), mainly taken from here. I originally planned to include info about when the premades were switched out or in. I firmly believe to remember that there has been a regular update which announced the retirement of some builds and the inclusion of others like the R/Me IVEX Trapper, but I haven't succeeded in finding this announcement. :So, instead of guessing a retirement date, I was hoping someone else would step forward and provide the info. At least I am prepared when the next lineup change will occur (and this won't be too far in the future, since they promised the winning guild from 2nd seasonal play-offs in GWFC to participate in the redesign.) --MRA 02:25, 17 June 2006 (CDT) Rago Kindlerock and (unique)(unique) the template adds the unique flag, but you seem to be doubling it. ?? --Honorable Sarah image:Honorable_Icon.gif 14:31, 20 July 2006 (CDT) :I am aware of that, seems like Skuld changed the Template:Green again while I was still "crusading" to add the uniques to the boss pages. I intended to keep adding the "(Unique)" and changing the Template back afterwards. --MRA 14:46, 20 July 2006 (CDT) ::Just checking here - doesn't that reduce Template:Green from being mostly pointless to being a complete waste of resources? I thought the only reason we didn't remove the template originally after eliminating the green links was because no one wanted to need to edit every article affected, so it had been changed to just have the "unique" flag. If that's no longer going to be needed, and if you're touching every article anyway, is there any reason to keep the green template at this point? --- Barek (talk • ) - 14:52, 20 July 2006 (CDT) :::I would say you are right, but I've been asked to keep the template calls in place (see http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/GuildWiki:Old_votes#End_of_Vote.3F). Maybe there is sone future use for this template, even if I cant think of one. --MRA 15:11, 20 July 2006 (CDT) ::::It would be a shame to miss this chance to purge them. Draygo didn't give a reason, unfortuneately. I'm assuming he just wanted to take the easier way than needing to edit all of them. The ideal solution is to find out if he had additional plans for the links. Otherwise, I think that now that they are all being edited, now is the ideal time to remove them. --- Barek (talk • ) - 15:19, 20 July 2006 (CDT) :::::Ok, I'll wait until tomorrow. If there are no further complaints against I'll start removing the template completely. --MRA 15:23, 20 July 2006 (CDT) why not just subst: them out? then, rather then simply moving the flag? --Honorable Sarah image:Honorable_Icon.gif 15:07, 20 July 2006 (CDT) :I'am not familar with subst: so what is it exactly you suggest? --MRA 15:23, 20 July 2006 (CDT)